MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 60 …1. MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . 60 Garden Court, Suite 325 Monterey, California 93940-5341 Del Rey Oaks Council Chambers

1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 60 Garden Court, Suite 325

Monterey, California 93940-5341

BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Del Rey Oaks Council Chambers

650 Canyon Del Rey Road Del Rey Oaks, California

Monday, November 2, 2015 at 6:00 p.m.

1) 6:00 p.m. Call to Order

2) Roll Call

3) Identification of Closed Session Items (Part or all of a meeting may be closed to the public under special conditions. The Board may only consider matters covered in the agenda descriptions.) A. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section

54956.8: A.P.N. 015-162-044, 015-162-045 and others (Negotiators: Payan and Jones)

4) Public Comment on Closed Session Item (The public may speak for a maximum of three

minutes on any closed session item. Please complete a speaker form and give it to the Board Clerk.)

5) Adjourn to Closed Session

6) 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting

7) Report on Return from Closed Session (The Board shall publicly report any action taken in Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.1(a).)

8) Approval of Agenda 9) Public Comments (The public may speak for a maximum of three minutes on any subject that

is not on the agenda. Please complete a speaker form and give it to the Board Clerk.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Kelly Sorenson (President) - Marina, Northern Fort Ord (Ward 1) Shane Anderson - Seaside, Northern Sand City, Southern Ft. Ord (Ward 2) Katie Pofahl - Monterey, Del Rey Oaks,

Southwest Seaside, Southern Sand City (Ward 3) Kathleen Lee - Pacific Grove, New Monterey,

Northern Pebble Beach (Ward 4) John Dalessio - Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur,

Southern Pebble Beach (Ward 5)

2

10) Presentation – MPRPD Liability Coverage, Q&A, Roy Angel, California Joint Powers Insurance Authority

11) Consent Items (Items on the Consent Calendar are routine and for which a staff recommendation has been prepared. There is no discussion of these items prior to the Board vote and items will be acted on in one motion, unless a member of the Board, staff or public requests specific items be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar. Public speakers are limited to three minutes.) A. Approval of October 5, 2015 Minutes (S. Parker) B. Approval of Summary of Payments (K. McCullough) C. Quarterly Investment Report (K. McCullough) D. Approval to Submit a 2016 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

California Bay Watershed Education and Training Grant Application, Year 2 (J. Nelson)

E. Approval to Accept National Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program Grant (J. Nelson)

F. Approval of Whitson Engineers Contract Amendment for Palo Corona Regional Park Parking Project Construction Management Services (T. Jensen)

12) Discussion/Action Item – 2016 Board Meeting Schedule, Board Appointments and Election of Officers (S. Parker)

13) Division Reports (The General Manager and designated staff may provide reports on their

activities or informational items and/or make brief announcements. They may also ask for clarification or direction from the Board.) A. Administration

1) Monthly Financial Report (K. McCullough) B. Environmental Education/Community Outreach

1) No Report C. Operations and Maintenance

1) Operations and Maintenance Division Update (C. Camarillo) D. Planning and Conservation

1) No Report

14) Adjournment

Agenda packets, with the exception of Closed Session and non-approved items are available at the Administration Office. Agendas are available at the Garland Park Visitor Center and Big Sur, Carmel, Carmel Valley, CSUMB, Marina, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Seaside Public Libraries. Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted after distribution of the Agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Administration Office during normal business hours. The Agendas and Agenda packets may also be viewed on the District website at www.mprpd.org. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) NOTICE: If you believe you possess any disability that would require special accommodation in order to attend and participate in this meeting, please contact the District Office at (831) 372-3196 at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

http://www.mprpd.org/

1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 60 Garden Court, Suite 325

Monterey, California 93940-5341

Del Rey Oaks Council Chambers 650 Canyon Del Rey Road October 5, 2015 Del Rey Oaks, California Monday, 6:00 p.m.

MINUTES

1) 6:00 p.m. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m.

2) Roll Call – Roll call was taken.

PRESENT: Directors Anderson; Dalessio; Pofahl; Sorenson (Lee arrived after roll call) ABSENT: None

3) Oath of Office – The Oath of Office was administered to Director Shane Anderson by

General Manager Rafael Payan

4) Identification of Closed Session Items – President Sorenson announced that the Board would be convening to Closed Session for Items 4-A-F and welcomed public comment. A. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section

54956.8: A.P.N. 417-251-001 (Negotiators: Jensen and Keller) B. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section

54956.8: Unspecified parcel(s) on former Fort Ord expected to be conveyed from Fort Ord Reuse Authority to the County of Monterey (Negotiators: Payan/Jensen and Chiulos)

C. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: A.P.N. 101-091-016 (Negotiators: Jensen and Burrell)

D. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: A.P.N. 015-162-044, 015-162-045 and others (Negotiators: Payan and Jones)

E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9 (One potential case.)

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Kelly Sorenson (President) - Marina, Northern Fort Ord (Ward 1)Shane Anderson - Seaside, Northern Sand City, Southern Ft. Ord (Ward 2) Katie Pofahl - Monterey, Del Rey Oaks,

Southwest Seaside, Southern Sand City (Ward 3) Kathleen Lee - Pacific Grove, New Monterey,

Northern Pebble Beach (Ward 4) John Dalessio - Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur,

Southern Pebble Beach (Ward 5)

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11-A

2

F. Instructions to Real Property Negotiators Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: A.P.N 103-071-013; 103-181-003; 259-091-007; 015-163-005, 006 & 007 and 015-441-003 (Negotiators: Payan/Jensen and Chiulos)

5) Public Comment on Closed Session Item – Chris Mack, spoke in support of the acquisition of Fort Ord lands. Ken Chrisman, representing the Monterey Off Road Cycling Association (MORCA) spoke in support of the District acquiring Fort Ord lands.

6) Adjourn to Closed Session – Closed Session commenced at 6:16 p.m. and ended at 6:25 p.m., then reconvened at 7:43 p.m.

Due to a professional conflict, Director Lee recused herself from Items 4-B and F and left the room during the discussions.

7) 6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting – The regular meeting commenced at 6:27 p.m. and ended at

7:39 p.m.

8) Report on Return from Closed Session – President Sorenson announced that no reportable action was taken and that the Board would go back into Closed Session after the end of the regular meeting.

9) Approval of Agenda 10) Presentations

A. Jared Boigon and Michael Levine of TBWB Strategies gave a brief summary on the Community Survey Results.

B. Kriss Neuman of Point Blue Conservation Science gave a presentation on the South Monterey Bay Dunes and the potential impacts of dogs on Snowy Plover.

C. Kelly McCullough, Finance Manager was presented with a Ten Year Service award plaque.

11) Public Comments – Kathy Biala shared her concerns for the Snowy Plover and the problem of off-leash dogs at Marina Dunes Preserve. Ken Chrisman urged the Board to thoroughly examine data presented by consultants and asked the Board to focus on public access at all District lands.

12) Consent Items – Upon motion by Director Lee, seconded by Director Dalessio, Items 12-A-D; F&G were unanimously approved. After discussion, upon motion by Director Dalessio, seconded by Director Pofahl, Item 12E was unanimously approved. A. Approval of August 19, 2015 Minutes (S. Parker) B. Approval of August 31, 2015 Minutes (S. Parker) C. Approval of Summary of Payments (K. McCullough) D. Approval of Resolution #2015-14, Authorizing a State Habitat Conservation Fund

Application (T. Jensen)

3

E. Approval of Contractor Bid and Contract for Services for Palo Corona Regional Park Parking Project (T. Jensen)

F. Approval of Change to Authorized Check Signers for District RaboBank Deposit Accounts (K. McCullough)

G. Approval of Change to Authorized Signatories for District Participation in the Investment Trust of California (CalTRUST) Investment Accounts (K. McCullough)

13) Discussion/Action Item – Approval of Resolution #2015-15, Fixing the Employer’s Contribution Under the Public Employees’ Medical and Hospital Care Act (R. Payan) - After discussion and upon motion by Director Pofahl, seconded by Director Lee, Item 13 was unanimously approved.

14) Division Reports (The General Manager and designated staff may provide reports on their

activities or informational items and/or make brief announcements. They may also ask for clarification or direction from the Board.) A. Administration

1) Monthly Financial Report (K. McCullough) B. Environmental Education/Community Outreach

1) Let’s Go Outdoors! Activity Guide, Fall 2015/Winter 2016 (J. Nelson) C. Operations and Maintenance

1) O&M Division Update (C. Camarillo) D. Planning and Conservation

1) No Report

15) Adjournment – The meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.

____________________________________ Shuran Parker, Recording Secretary

1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

DATE: November 2, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Kelly McCullough, Finance Manager REVIEWED BY: Rafael Payan, General Manager SUBJECT: Quarterly Investment Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the Board of Director’s receive, approve and file this report. FISCAL IMPACT: The District’s Investment Report provides information about investments and cash accounts held. There is no fiscal impact. DISCUSSION: The District’s Investment Policy requires that the District present to the Board of Directors a quarterly financial report, which shall include a summary of all the investments the District has in its portfolio. The summary of investments shall include the type of investment instruments, purchase date, maturity date, par value, current interest rate, purchase price and the current market value. Investment objectives of the District are established in the Investment Policy and in accordance with the California Government Code Section 53601 as follows: (1) Safety; (2) Liquidity; (3) Yield. The current investment and cash portfolio is comprised of: demand deposit accounts; Local Agency Investment Fund; CalTRUST. The specific investments are shown on the attached page (ATTACHMENT 1). The report also includes information on funds held in Trust for Other Post Employment expenses and supplemental retirement benefits, but that are not spendable for operational costs. A Rabobank Public Interest Checking account is currently used for payroll, accounts payable and other daily operating purposes. Most accounts payable disbursements are drawn through checks, and most payroll disbursements are processed through direct deposit. The market value and original cost value of cash are reported as the same number. Because this is the daily operating account, there may be large fluctuations from one quarterly report to another depending on the nature of the deposits and expenditures and cash flow needs during the quarter. The District established a Rabobank Public Investment Money Market Account (PIMMA) in August 2014. The minimum required balance in the account is $50,000 or there is a $25 monthly maintenance fee. The account was indexed to match the monthly LAIF rate. However, the District was notified regarding a rate change. Effective June 9, 2015, 2015, Rabobank has decided to reduce the PIMMA rate to a flat rate of 0.20% on balances up to $50 million. Interest is paid monthly and the funds are collateralized at 110% at all times. As a Federal Regulation, we are limited to 6 withdrawals per month. Thus the rate for the PIMMA is at 0.20% vs. the

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11-C

2

0.02% in the Public Interest Checking account. Use of this account helps the District reduce wire transfer charges from CalTRUST and LAIF to the Public Interest Checking account while still achieving comparable investment earnings. Transfers between the PIMMA and Public Interest Checking are free of charge. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) is part of the Pooled Money Investment Account (PMIA) operated by the California State Treasurer for the benefit of local governmental agencies. Market valuations are provided by the State Treasurer’s Office. The District is able to make deposits or withdrawals daily, if desired. Interest is paid quarterly and applied to principal. Gains or losses are reported when realized. The LAIF account monies are not subject to use by the State to resolve budget deficits. California Government Code 16429.3 states that monies placed with the Treasurer for deposit in the LAIF by cities, counties, special districts, nonprofit corporations, or qualified quasi-governmental agencies shall not be subject to either of the following: (a) Transfer or loan pursuant to Sections 16310, 16312, or 16313. (b) Impoundment or seizure by any state official or state agency. In addition to the above, the State cannot withhold LAIF monies if they fail to adopt a state budget by the June 30th deadline. California Code 16429.4, which was added to the LAIF’s enabling legislation during the 2002 session, states that the right of a city, county, city and county, special district, nonprofit corporation, or qualified quasi-governmental agency, to withdraw its deposited money from the LAIF upon demand may not be altered, impaired, or denied in any way by any state official or state agency based upon the State’s failure to adopt a State Budget by July 1 of each new fiscal year. Investment Trust of California (CalTRUST) is a joint powers authority (JPA). This is a program established by public agencies in California for the purpose of pooling and investing local agency funds / operating reserves as well as bond proceeds. A Board of Trustees supervises and administers the investment program of the Trust. The Board is comprised of experienced investment officers and policy-makers of the public agency members. CalTRUST offers the option of three accounts to provide participating agencies with a convenient method of pooling funds – a money market, a short-term account, and a medium-term account. Any California local agency may participate in the Trust and invest its funds. For the CalTRUST Short-Term, Medium-Term, and money market Accounts, funds from all participants are pooled in each of the accounts. Participants receive units in the Trust and designated shares for the particular accounts in which they invest. All expenses associated with participation in CalTRUST are deducted from the yield. CalTRUST invests in fixed income securities eligible for investment pursuant to California Government Code Sections 53601, et. seq. and 53635, et. seq. Investment guidelines adopted by the Board of Trustees may further restrict the types of investments held by the Trust. Leveraging within the Trust’s portfolios is prohibited. The $2,317,020 Seawall Mitigation funds held in CalTRUST are restricted funds and are not available for the Districts on-going operating costs. The mitigation fee was to mitigate for the loss of sandy beach in front of Ocean Harbor House due to construction of the seawall. These funds may only be used for the purchase of beachfront or dune-front property for public recreation use in southern Monterey Bay. The entire fee and any accrued interest must be used

3

for this purpose within ten years of the fee being deposited into the MPRPD account. These funds must be fully expended by March 2021. The California Employers Retirement Benefit Trust (CERBT) was established by the District to hold the District’s Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) funds. These funds are not liquid funds and are not available for the Districts on-going operating costs. The District does have the ability to request reimbursement from the Trust for the annual amount paid for retiree health benefit premiums. The District is invested in CERBT Strategy 1. Each employer owns a percentage of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS. Employers do not have direct ownership of the securities in the portfolio. CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross investment return by the fee amount. The total annual cost for participation in the California Employers' Retiree Benefit (CERBT) has been lowered to 10 basis points (bps) of assets under management beginning January 15, 2015. The 10 bps consists of the annual investment fee charged prior to the recognition of investment gains and losses of 1.5 bps and the administration and investment management fee of 8.5 bps which is charged on a daily basis. The cost has been lowered again because the CERBT program continues to experience strong trust growth. The CERBT portfolio is managed by CalPERS Investment Office staff as directed by the CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration. The CERBT is a state trust fund program and retains no profit from the CERBT program. .Attached is the latest CERBT Fund Fact Sheet (ATTACHMENT 2). Included in the report are the District’s investments held in trust at US Bank for the Public Agency Retirement Services (PARS) benefit. These funds currently consist of cash and mutual funds. These funds are not liquid funds and are not available for the District’s on-going operating costs. They may only be used for payment of retiree benefits. The District has acquired the services of Highmark Capital Management to manage the investments of the PARS accounts. The goal of the Plan’s investment program is to generate adequate long-term returns that, when combined with contributions, will result in sufficient assets to pay the present and future obligations of the Plan. The Plan should earn, on a long-term average basis, a rate of return equal to or in excess of the target rate of return of 6.25%. The PARS Third Quarter 2015 Fact Sheet is attached (ATTACHMENT 3). Of the $10,733,394 in the investment and cash accounts as of September 30, 2015, only $8,416,375 was available for on-going operational costs. The $2,317,020 Seawall Mitigation funds may only be used for the acquisition of beachfront property in southern Monterey Bay. In compliance with the California Code Section 53646; the Finance Manager hereby certifies that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the District's budgeted expenditure requirements for the next six months. Attachments:

1. Quarterly Summary of Investments 2. CERBT Fund Fact Sheet – Strategy 1 3. PARS Third Quarter 2015 Fact Sheet

shuran

Attachment 1

California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)CERBT Strategy 1September 30, 2015

Objective The objective of the CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is to seek returns that reflect the broad investment performance of the financial markets through capital appreciation and investment income. There is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objective. Strategy The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio is invested in various asset classes in percentages approved by the CalPERS Board. The specific percentages of portfolio assets allocated to each asset class are shown under “Composition”. Generally, equities are intended to help build the value of the employer’s portfolio over the long term while bonds are intended to help provide income and stability of principal. Also, strategies invested in a higher percentage of equities seek higher investment returns (but assume more risk) compared with strategies invested in a higher percentage of bonds. Compared with CERBT Strategy 2 and Strategy 3, this portfolio consists of a higher percentage of equities than bonds and other assets. Historically, equities have displayed greater price volatility and therefore this portfolio may experience greater fluctuation of value. Employers that seek higher investment returns, and are able to accept greater risk and tolerate more fluctuation in returns, may wish to consider this portfolio. CalPERS Board may change the list of approved asset classes, in composition as well as targeted allocation percentages and ranges at any time. Assets Under Management As of the specifed reporting month-end, the aggregate total of assets under management for all CERBT Strategies was

$4,402,813,984.

Composition Asset Class Allocations and Benchmarks The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of the following asset classes and corresponding benchmarks:

Asset ClassTarget

Allocation1Target Range

Benchmark

Global Equity 57% ± 2%MSCI All Country World Index IMI (net)

Fixed Income 27% ±2% Barclays Capital Long Liability Index

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities ("TIPS")

5% ± 2%Barclays Capital Global: US TIPS Index

Real Estate Investment Trusts ("REITs")

8% ± 2%FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Liquid Index (net)

Commodities 3% ± 2% S&P GSCI Total Return Index

1 Allocations approved by the Board at the October 2014 Investment Committee meeting

Portfolio Benchmark The CERBT Strategy 1 benchmark is a composite of underlying asset class market indices, each assigned the target weight for the asset class it represents. Target vs. Actual Asset Class Allocations The following chart shows policy target allocations compared with actual asset allocations as of the specified reporting month-end. CalPERS may overweight or underweight an allocation to a particular asset class based on market, economic, or CalPERS policy considerations.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Global Equity Fixed Income TIPS REITs Commodities

Target Actual

CERBT Strategy 1 Performance as of September 30, 2015

1 Month 3 Months Fiscal YTD 1 Year 3 Years* 5 Years* Since Inception*(June 1, 2007)

Returns before expenses1 -2.02% -5.85% -5.85% -3.50% 5.54% 6.93% 3.32%

Benchmark returns -2.04% -5.86% -5.86% -3.82% 5.21% 6.74% 2.87%

*Returns for periods greater than one year are annualized.1 See the Expense section of this document.

shuran

Attachment 2

California Employers' Retiree Benefit Trust (CERBT)CERBT Strategy 1September 30, 2015

General Information

Information Accessibility The CERBT Strategy 1 portfolio consists of assets managed internally by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Since it is not a mutual fund, a prospectus is not available nor is information available from a newspaper source. This summary is designed to provide descriptive information. CalPERS provides a quarterly statement of the employer’s account and other information about the CERBT. For total market value, detailed asset allocation, investment policy and current performance information, including performance to the most recent month-end, please visit our website at: www.calpers.ca.gov. Portfolio Manager Information The CalPERS Investment Committee and Board of Administration directs the investment strategy and investments of the CERBT. Under that direction, CalPERS Investment staff manages fixed income, treasuery inflation-protected securities and commodities assets; and State Street Global Advisors (SSgA) manages the global equity and real estate investment trust assets. Custodian and Record Keeper State Street Bank serves as custodian for the CERBT. Northeast Retirement Services serves as record keeper. Expenses CERBT is a self-funded trust in which participating employers pay for all administrative and investment expenses. Expenses reduce the gross investment return by the fee amount. The larger the fee, the greater the reduction of investment return. Currently, CERBT expenses are 0.10% which consist of administrative expenses borne by CalPERS to administer and oversee the Trust assets, investment management and administrative fees paid to SSgA to manage the global equity and real estate trust assets, and recordkeeping fees paid to Northeast Retirement Services to administer individual employer accounts. The expenses described herein are reflected in the net asset value per share. CERBT’s actual expenses may differ from the amount currently being accrued due to factors such as changes in average fund assets or market conditions. The expense accrual rate may change without notice in order to reflect changes in average portfolio assets or in expense amounts. The CalPERS Board annually reviews the operating expenses and changes may be made as appropriate. Even if the portfolio loses money during a period, the fee is still charged.

What Employers Own Each employer choosing CERBT Strategy 1 owns a percentage of this portfolio, which invests in pooled asset classes managed by CalPERS and/or external advisors. Employers do not have direct ownership of the securities in the portfolio. Price The value of the portfolio changes daily, based upon the market value of the underlying securities. Just as prices of individual securities fluctuate, the portfolio’s value also changes with market conditions. Principal Risks of the Portfolio The CalPERS CERBT Fund provides California government employers with a trust through which they may prefund retiree medical costs and other post-employment benefits. CERBT is not, however, a defined benefit plan. There is no guarantee that the portfolio will achieve its investment objectives nor provide sufficient funding to meet these employer obligations. Further, CalPERS will not make up the difference between actual health care premiums for payment of future benefits provided to retirees should CERBT assets not be sufficient to cover future obligations. An investment in the portfolio is not a bank deposit, and it is not insured nor guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), CalPERS, the State of California or any other government agency. There are risks associated with investing, including possible loss of principal. The portfolio’s risk depends in part on the portfolio’s asset class allocations and the selection, weighting and risks of the underlying investments. For more information about investment risks, please see the document entitled “CERBT Principal Investment Risks” located at www.calpers.ca.gov. Fund Performance Performance data shown on page 1 represents past performance and is no guarantee of future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an employer’s units, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance may be higher or lower than historical performance data shown. For current performance information, please visit www.calpers.ca.gov and follow the links to California Employer Retirees’ Benefit Trust.

CERBT Strategy Risk Levels CalPERS offers employers the choice of one of three investment strategies. Risk levels among strategies vary, depending upon the target asset class allocations. Generally, equities carry more risk than fixed income securities.

Asset Class Target Allocations Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3

Global Equity 57% 40% 24%

Fixed Income 27% 39% 39%

Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities 5% 10% 26%

Real Estate Investment Trusts 8% 8% 8%

Commodities 3% 3% 3%

PARS: MONTEREY PENINSULA Third Quarter 2015

Presented by Andrew Brown, CFA

shuran

Attachment 3

Account Inception: 08/01/2013 Returns are gross of account level investment advisory fees and net of any fees, including fees to manage mutual fund or exchange traded fund holdings. Returns for periods over one year are annualized. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee, and may lose value.

Sector3 Months

Year to Date

(9 Months)1 Year

Inception to Date

(26 Months)

Cash Equivalents .01 .02 .03 .02iMoneyNet, Inc. Taxable .01 .01 .02 .02

Total Fixed Income .09 .43 1.35 2.57BC US Aggregate Bd Index 1.23 1.13 2.94 3.38

Total Equities -8.79 -5.11 -2.84 5.21

Large Cap Funds -7.40 -4.04 -.16 7.90S&P 500 Composite Index -6.44 -5.29 -.61 8.43

Mid Cap Funds -10.00 -7.92 -2.27 3.69Russell Midcap Index -8.01 -5.84 -.25 7.78

Small Cap Funds -8.21 -2.71 3.95 6.77Russell 2000 Index -11.92 -7.73 1.25 3.79

International Equities -11.24 -7.23 -10.64 -.59MSCI EAFE Index -10.23 -5.28 -8.66 .42MSCI EM Free Index -17.90 -15.47 -19.28 -5.67

Total Managed Portfolio -5.06 -2.62 -.89 3.97

Selected Period PerformancePARS/MONTEREY PENINSULA REP DB

Account 6746019900Period Ending: 09/30/2015

ASSET ALLOCATION – Monterey Peninsula REP DB As of September 30, 2015

Current Asset Allocation Investment Vehicle

Equity 58.88% 293,123 Large Cap Core 7.51% SMGIX Columbia Contrarian Core Cl Z 37,368 Large Cap Value 7.17% DODGX Dodge & Cox Stock Fund 35,701

6.98% LSGIX Loomis Sayles Value Fund 34,753 Large Cap Growth 4.35% HACAX Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl 21,640

4.27% PRGFX T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 21,252 Mid Cap Value 2.62% TIMVX TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl 13,033 Mid Cap Growth 1.70% IYMIX Ivy Mid Cap Growth Fund I 8,469 Small Cap Value 4.87% NSVAX Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II 24,222 Small Cap Growth 3.12% PRNHX T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund 15,519 International Core 4.54% NWHNX Nationwide Bailard Intl Equities Fund 22,596 International Value 2.26% DODFX Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund 11,269 International Growth 2.31% MQGIX MFS International Growth Fund 11,493 Tactical - Europe 3.31% FEZ SPDR EURO STOXX 50 ETF 16,485 Emerging Markets 3.88% SEMNX Schroder Emerging Market Equity 19,324

Fixed Income 37.26% 185,491 Short-Term 4.52% VFSUX Vanguard Short-Term Corp Adm Fund 22,516 Intermediate-Term 15.79% NWJJX Nationwide HighMark Bond Fund 78,587

15.71% PTTRX PIMCO Total Return Instl Fund 78,229 High Yield 1.24% PHIYX PIMCO High Yield Instl 6,159

Cash 3.86% 19,231 3.86% FPZXX First American Prime Obligations Fund 19,231

TOTAL 100.00% $497,845

Account Inception: 08/01/2013 Returns are gross of account level investment advisory fees and net of any fees, including fees to manage mutual fund or exchange traded fund holdings. Returns for periods over one year are annualized. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee, and may lose value.

Sector3 Months

Year to Date

(9 Months)1 Year

Inception to Date

(26 Months)

Cash Equivalents .01 .02 .02 .02iMoneyNet, Inc. Taxable .01 .01 .02 .02

Total Fixed Income .06 .46 1.42 2.74BC US Aggregate Bd Index 1.23 1.13 2.94 3.38

Total Equities -8.83 -4.97 -2.66 5.05

Large Cap Funds -7.42 -4.06 -.14 7.78S&P 500 Composite Index -6.44 -5.29 -.61 8.43

Mid Cap Funds -10.10 -7.99 -2.32 3.43Russell Midcap Index -8.01 -5.84 -.25 7.78

Small Cap Funds -8.31 -2.75 3.92 6.56Russell 2000 Index -11.92 -7.73 1.25 3.79

International Equities -11.35 -7.15 -10.56 -1.05MSCI EAFE Index -10.23 -5.28 -8.66 .42MSCI EM Free Index -17.90 -15.47 -19.28 -5.67

Total Managed Portfolio -5.37 -2.66 -.95 4.31

Selected Period PerformancePARS/MONTEREY PENINSULA 415(M)

Account 6745029000Period Ending: 09/30/2015

ASSET ALLOCATION – Monterey Peninsula 415 As of September 30, 2015

Current Asset Allocation Investment Vehicle

Equity 52.24% 10,205 Large Cap Core 6.89% SMGIX Columbia Contrarian Core Cl Z 1,346 Large Cap Value 4.96% DODGX Dodge & Cox Stock Fund 970

5.55% LSGIX Loomis Sayles Value Fund 1,084 Large Cap Growth 4.13% HACAX Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl 806

3.78% PRGFX T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund 739 Mid Cap Value 2.21% TIMVX TIAA-CREF Mid-Cap Value Instl 432 Mid Cap Growth 2.20% IYMIX Ivy Mid Cap Growth Fund I 431 Small Cap Value 3.96% NSVAX Columbia Small Cap Value Fund II 774 Small Cap Growth 3.96% PRNHX T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund 773 International Core 4.45% NWHNX Nationwide Bailard Intl Equities Fund 868 International Value 2.05% DODFX Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund 401 International Growth 2.28% MQGIX MFS International Growth Fund 446 Tactical - Europe 2.77% FEZ SPDR EURO STOXX 50 ETF 542 Emerging Markets 3.03% SEMNX Schroder Emerging Market Equity 592

Fixed Income 38.67% 7,555 Short-Term 4.23% VFSUX Vanguard Short-Term Corp Adm Fund 827 Intermediate-Term 16.35% NWJJX Nationwide HighMark Bond Fund 3,193

16.20% PTTRX PIMCO Total Return Instl Fund 3,164 High Yield 1.90% PHIYX PIMCO High Yield Instl 371

Cash 9.09% 1,775 9.09% FPZXX First American Prime Obligations Fund 1,775

TOTAL 100.00% $19,535

1-Month 3-Month Year-to- 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-YearFund Name Inception Return Return Date Return Return Return ReturnColumbia Contrarian Core Cl Z (6/11) -3.41 -7.22 -4.43 0.05 13.74 14.35 8.94Dodge & Cox Stock -4.19 -9.84 -8.64 -6.62 13.39 13.03 5.53Harbor Capital Appreciation Instl 7/10 -2.53 -5.44 2.68 6.03 15.35 15.06 8.16Loomis Sayles Value Fund (8/11) -3.79 -9.47 -8.85 -5.37 11.74 12.30 6.92T. Rowe Price Growth Stock -3.63 -4.71 2.08 6.47 15.24 15.19 8.73S&P 500 Index -2.47 -6.44 -5.29 -0.61 12.40 13.34 6.80

Ivy Mid Cap Growth I (5/14) -4.18 -11.61 -8.56 -2.75 9.90 10.81 8.47Russell Mid Cap Growth Index -3.86 -7.99 -4.15 1.45 13.98 13.58 8.09TIAA-Cref Mid-Cap Value Instl (2/10) -3.45 -8.62 -7.52 -2.01 12.73 12.11 7.39Russell Mid Cap Value Index -3.34 -8.04 -7.66 -2.07 13.69 13.15 7.42Russell Mid Cap Index -3.60 -8.01 -5.84 -0.25 13.91 13.40 7.87

Columbia Small Cap Value II Z -2.78 -8.97 -5.09 1.33 12.91 12.62 7.22T. Rowe Price New Horizons -4.02 -7.78 -0.62 6.32 15.98 18.10 10.46Russell 2000 Index -4.91 -11.92 -7.73 1.25 11.02 11.73 6.55

Dodge & Cox Intl Stock -6.23 -15.38 -12.09 -16.19 6.62 4.06 4.21Nationwide Bailard Intl Equities -3.96 -8.75 -3.18 -4.25 7.49 4.84 4.16Schroder Emerging Market Equity (11/12) -1.62 -15.66 -13.19 -17.13 -4.66 -2.56 --MFS International Growth I -2.35 -8.45 -3.33 -5.43 3.34 4.10 5.12SPDR Euro Stoxx 50 ETF (6/14) -5.43 -9.09 -6.90 -12.64 6.25 1.90 1.60MSCI EAFE Index -5.08 -10.23 -5.28 -8.66 5.63 3.98 2.97MSCI Emerging Markets Index -3.01 -17.90 -15.47 -19.28 -5.27 -3.58 4.27

1-Month 3-Month Year-to- 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-YearFund Name Inception Return Return Date Return Return Return ReturnNationwide HighMark Bond Fid 0.46 0.46 0.71 1.88 1.72 3.35 4.83Pimco Total Return Inst'l -0.47 -0.09 0.25 1.58 1.36 3.23 5.76Vanguard Short-Term Investment-Grade Adm 0.46 0.44 1.41 1.63 1.64 2.18 3.68PIMCO High Yield Instl (11/14) -2.79 -3.50 -1.37 -0.96 3.61 5.65 6.36BarCap US Aggregate Bond 0.68 1.23 1.13 2.94 1.71 3.10 4.64Credit Suisse HY -2.50 -5.17 -2.42 -3.96 3.30 5.93 6.89

Source: SEI Investments, Morningstar Investments

As of September 30, 2015

INTERNATIONAL EQUITY FUNDS

BOND FUNDS

Returns less than one year are not annualized. Past performance is no indication of future results. The information presented has been obtained from sources believed to be accurate and reliable. Securities are not FDIC insured, have no bank guarantee and may lose value.

MONTEREY PENINSULA

LARGE CAP EQUITY FUNDS

MID CAP EQUITY FUNDS

SMALL CAP EQUITY FUNDS

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Jackie Nelson, Environmental Education Supervisor REVIEWED BY: Rafael Payan, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval to Submit a 2016 National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, California Bay Watershed Education and Training Grant Application, Year 2

RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Board approve and authorize staff to apply for the 2016 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), California Bay Watershed Education and Training (BWET) grant to continue the implementation of the second year of the pilot “Connecting Students to Their Local Watershed” education program in partnership with the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History (PGMNH). FISCAL IMPACT There is the potential of revenue in the amount of $60,000 of grant monies for the continued development and expansion of in-field programs engaging students in meaningful watershed experiences and providing teachers with professional development opportunities for the Fiscal Year 2016-17. DISCUSSION In November 2014, staff applied for the first year of a three year NOAA-BWET grant cycle. In August 2015, MPRPD received $49,957 of grant monies 2015 NOAA-BWET grant program for which MPRPD entered into an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement with the PGMNH to implement the program. It was identified in the initial 2015 NOAA-BWET grant application that during the first year staff will jointly develop multiple single-day experiences for grades K-5 to take place at Garland Ranch Regional Park, Palo Corona Regional Park, the Carmel Lagoon and a local beach. It was anticipated that the MPRPD Watershed Education programs would serve approximately 500 students and 20 teachers per year from classes based in Monterey county. In this 2015 NOAA-BWET grant application it was also identified that during the second year of the project, approximately 1,000 students and 35 teachers would be served and curriculum for grades 6-8 would developed. The third year of the project 1,200 students and 40 teachers would be served. In addition, 40 teachers are to be trained each year through the professional workshops. The PGMNH hired a Field Coordinator position in September 2015 to develop program curriculum, advertisement and outreach to teachers and schools. Working cooperatively, MPRPD and PGMNH are meeting weekly on the development of programs and teacher training workshops that are scheduled to start in late winter/early spring 2016 (February-May 2016)

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11-D

Staff respectively requests that the Board approve and authorize staff to apply for the 2016 NOAA-BWET grant to continue the implementation of the second year of the pilot “Connecting Students to Their Local Watershed” education program in partnership with the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History (PGMNH) as part of the development of the three year program.

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING DATE: November 2, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Jackie Nelson, Environmental Education Supervisor REVIEWED BY: Rafael Payan, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval to Accept National Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails, and

Conservation Assistance Program Grant RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Board approve acceptance of the National Park Service (NPS) Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program grant for planning and technical consultation assistance for the development of a District-wide Interpretive Master Planning Guide (IMPG). Attached is a copy of the awarded grant application (ATTACHMENT 1). FISCAL IMPACT Fiscal impacts are anticipated to be minimal and will be absorbed within the approved MPRPD Fiscal Year 2015-16 budget. The NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program is committed to providing up to 160 hours of staff planning expertise time for the development and review of the IMPG. This grant includes staff assistance only; it does not include any direct monetary support . DISCUSSION In July 2015, the Board authorized staff to apply for the NPS Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program for the development of a long-range interpretive master planning guide. Identified in MPRPD’s Strategic Plan, the IMPG will identify the significant resources for every MPRPD park, open-space and conservation land, the District’s overall interpretive mission and strategies to achieve this, and direction in formulating future, site-specific interpretive master plans. Ms. Linda Stonier will facilitate the IMPG process, as well as get input from Board members, key stakeholders, the public and staff. The IMPG will present a strategic interpretive approach that establishes how and why MPRPD interprets its resources and thematic messaging and provides the platform to showcase each property’s assets, while at the same time demonstrating the physiographic, cultural and biological features of MPRPD’s properties. The goals presented in the guide will describe WHY the MPRPD conducts education and interpretation programming, and will demonstrate HOW those goals are to be achieved. The IMPG is designed to formulate the most effective means of reaching our target audiences with the most important messages at each MPRPD property. Staff respectfully requests the Board approve acceptance of the grant. The grant period takes affect October 1, 2015 and will be in effect through September 30, 2016. The IMPG is scheduled to be completed prior to the end of the grant period.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11-E

National Park Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program Grant Application 2016 - MPRPD

1

Project Description:

1. Describe: a) Your vision and summary statement of the overall project goal; b) Tangible outcomes of the project (i.e. recreational opportunities developed, plan

creation, development of ideas and goals, miles, acres); c) Project accomplishments to date; d) Support: governmental/organizational support/recognition; endorsements from

elected officials and boards, etc.; e) Community benefits that would result from implementing the proposed project (i.e.

recreational opportunities in areas with little to no recreational access); f) Geographic location of your project and characteristics of that location (rural,

coastal, wetland, urban, specific areas within a city or county, etc.); g) Important demographic characteristics of your project area that will benefit or be

impacted with creation and/or addition of recreational opportunities. 1.a) Your vision and summary statement of the overall project goal Interpretation serves the purpose of connecting people to the land and supports our agency's mission to preserve and protect parks and open space. An Interpretive Master Planning Guide (IMPG) provides a clear direction that helps agency staff and managers prioritize what to interpret, to whom, when and by what means. As a purposeful method for changing visitor behavior in ways that are interesting, inspiring and educational to the visitor, interpretation is an essential tool for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District (MPRPD) staff to manage its natural and cultural resources. MPRPD is pursuing this planning process to help formulate the most effective means of reaching our target audiences with the most important messages at the agency level at each MPRPD property. The Interpretive Master Planning Guide (IMPG) will present a strategic interpretive approach that establishes how and why MPRPD interprets its resources and thematic messaging and provides the platform to showcase each property’s assets, while at the same time demonstrating the physiographic, cultural and biological features of MPRPD’s properties. The goals presented in the guide will describe WHY the MPRPD conducts education and interpretation; the desired outcomes demonstrate HOW those goals are achieved. The IMPG guide will be used as an overarching prospectus for MPRPD in general while also helping to formulate future, site-specific interpretive master plans for every MPRPD park, open-space and conservation land. 1.b) Tangible outcomes of the project (i.e. recreational opportunities developed, plan creation, development of ideas and goals, miles, acres); The purpose of an MPRPD district-wide Interpretive Master Plan is to assess needs, inventory existing offerings, and provide recommendations for ongoing and future interpretive services for the entire district. An interpretive planning process provides a filter for agencies and organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of and to make

shuran

Attachment 1


2

decisions about the use of interpretation. Use of the plan, intended as an assessment tool, will aid staff and managers in moving toward the goals stated in the document. The IMPG will establish overarching direction intended to guide interpretation throughout the entire MPRPD. Conceptually, the IMPG shall establish broad goals and objectives for interpretation; target audiences; and identify themes and sub-themes. Subsequent interpretive master or specific planning for each MPRPD property will be driven by the IMPG. Tangible outcomes for the IMPG include:

1) Park Assessment: An assessment of interpretive opportunities based on an inventory of MPRPD parklands. With the support of MPRPD staff, volunteers and stakeholders, the assessment will:

a. Identify MPRPD Parks, Open Space and Conservation Lands i. Describe each park (historical use, location, acquisition, etc..) ii. Include the acreage of the land iii. Identify public use and access

b. Develop Statements of Significance i. Identify cultural resources ii. Identify key physiographic and hydrologic features iii. Identify habitats (flora and fauna) iv. Identify recreational resources v. Research and document existing interpretive resources and

document the condition and visitor use a. Effectiveness b. Accessibility c. Messaging

c. Identify resource issues and concerns i. Barriers ii. Revenue potential iii. Public safety iv. Park security v. Environmental factors vi. Maintenance vii. Use of facilities and equipment

2) Scope: The scope is the broad conceptual framework for developing an

integrated network of interpretive opportunities used to reach management objectives. This includes:

a. Research and document historical and cultural uses b. Research and document target markets

i. Demographics of Monterey County; district residents, park users ii. Define audience iii. Schools and school needs

c. Define Interpretive uses of MPRPD Parks d. Define desired visitor experiences e. Define Goals and Outcomes f. Identify Messages Themes and Sub-themes


3

This assessment process provides an opportunity for MPRPD to have a "big picture" understanding of its many diverse natural and cultural assets and the potential stories that can be presented to visitors about those assets. This process will help to determine which stories to tell, where and how to best tell them, and when. It is an effort to formalize the MPRPD's interpretive programs and demonstrate the value of interpretation in an overall perspective, thereby providing an inventory of the type of resources that are most significant in providing opportunities for interpretation, explaining how visitor experiences will be enhanced, and how support of the MPRPD will be increased. 1. c) Project accomplishments to date A comprehensive look at the MPRPD’s interpretive program has never been conducted to date. As public and staff interest in interpretation grows, the acreage MPRPD manages and as visitation to our parks and open spaces increases, MPRPD realizes a comprehensive assessment and strategy is needed in order to effectively plan for the future. Several meetings with staff and volunteers have been conducted to create preliminary resource inventory lists that focus on specific parks and open spaces from which statements of significance can be developed. Staff has developed a list of stakeholders, partners and residents to include in Interpretive Planning workshops. The workshop(s) will include an introduction to the “meaning of interpretation” as it relates to public parks, open spaces, cultural resources and conservation lands, as well as the development of District-wide interpretive goals and themes. In April 2015, the MPRPD Board of Directors and staff began a District-wide, 5-year Strategic Master Planning process. Anticipated to be completed by November 2015, the Strategic Master Plan will provide direction and define priorities for land acquisition, land management, interpretation and financial stability. Aligning with the MPRPD Strategic Master Plan, the IMPG will identify the significant resources for every MPRPD park, open space and conservation land and will provide direction in formulating future, site-specific interpretive master plans. The initial framework for the IMPG included consultation assistance from Ms. Linda Stonier, NPS’s Northern California representative. Ms. Stonier was to conduct a one-day Interpretive Planning Workshop for the development of a long-range IMPG during the months of May and June 2015. The workshop was not conducted as staff determined that it was best to wait until MPRPD’s Strategic Plan was launched and completed.


4

1. d) Support: governmental/organizational support/recognition; endorsements from elected officials and boards, etc. The MPRPD Board of Directors and the General Manager have identified the development of an IMPG as a high priority and have designated staff time for the completion of this project. 1. e) Community benefits that would result from implementing the proposed project (i.e. recreational opportunities in areas with little to no recreational access) In preliminary planning of the IMPG, staff and volunteers identified the following Interpretive/Education Goals and Desired Outcomes. GOAL 1: Increase support of the conservation of the natural and cultural resources in our parks, open spaces and conservation lands through increased access, knowledge, understanding and appreciation.

Desired Outcome 1a. Visitors will be able to cite something new they've learned about MPRPD resources.

Desired Outcome 1b. Visitors will express an interest in returning to MPRPD lands and participating in another interpretive or educational activity.

Desired Outcome 1c. Visitors will make donations of time, as docents and through other volunteer opportunities, and/or money to MPRPD. Desired Outcome 1d. Visitors will be inspired to becoming an informed, conservation-minded, decision-maker.

GOAL 2: Increase awareness and understanding of the dynamic relationship between humans and the environment, and the impacts of human activity on highly sensitive and easily damaged MPRPD lands.

Desired Outcome 2a. Visitors will be able to list ways that humans shape the land, and are shaped by it.

Desired Outcome 2b. Visitors will feel an increased emotional or intellectual connection to the resources and/or lands, and will demonstrate that connection by recreating responsibly and participating in a volunteer stewardship project or other volunteering activity.


5

Desired Outcome 2c. Visitors will enhance their environmental literacy, including awareness of such concepts as energy flow, food webs, nutrient cycles and the movement of water.

Desired Outcome 2d. Visitors will be able to cite at least one significant way people have utilized MPRPD lands throughout history.

GOAL 3: Gain understanding of MPRPD policies, management practices and activities.

Desired Outcome 3a. The public will be able to associate MPRPD as the agency that manages parks, open space and conservation lands directly and through partnerships.

Desired Outcome 3b. Demonstrate MPRPD’s commitment to become an industry leader through our continued implementation of best practices throughout our organization and reducing the public concerns regarding management. Desired Outcome 3c. MPRPD will continue to earn and keep necessary public support to meet and sustain land acquisition and maintenance goals.

Desired outcome 3d. Visitors seeking basic information on the MPRPD website, social media and apps will indicate they are able to easily find the information they seek.

GOAL 4: Improve stewardship ethics through increased understanding of the values of open space.

Desired Outcome 4a. Visitors will be able to cite at least one way that open space is of value to the preservation, conservation and stewardship of natural and cultural resources.

Desired Outcome 4b. Visitors will understand and support that open space preservation may present certain limitations on public access.

GOAL 5: Protect and restore the quality of biodiversity and native habitat conditions.

Desired Outcome 5a. Visitors will understand that invasive and non-invasive, non-native species are a threat to the biological integrity of MPRPD preserves.


6

Desired Outcome 5b. Visitors will know at least one way that they can protect native species and their habitats.

GOAL 6: Provide an improved visitor experience.

Desired Outcome 6a. Visitors will know where to go and how to best experience MPRPD parks, open spaces and conservation lands.

Desired Outcome 6b. Visitors will report learning about MPRPD through a network of marketing and promotional activities.

Desired Outcome 6c.

Visitors will have all of the information they need to safely, legally and responsibly recreate on designated lands.

Desired Outcome 6d.

Visitors will complement their MPRPD experience with other natural and cultural heritage experiences in the area, and will report an increased sense of place.

Desired Outcome 6e.

Complaints regarding user conflicts will be reduced. GOAL 7: Reduce impact on highly sensitive areas.

Desired Outcome 7a. Visitors will understand the need to preserve native habitats as a means to protect its dependent biological components.

Desired Outcome 7b. To the best of MPRPD’s ability, there will be no net decline in populations of highly sensitive species and actually see their increase.

Desired Outcome 7c. Visitors will understand the need to protect native plants and animals. Desired Outcome 7d. Visitors will understand the importance of MPRPD resources and describe a personal role in protecting those resources. Desired Outcome 7e. Critical populations or ecosystems that overlap with major visitor use areas will show stable or positive condition trends.


7

Desired Outcome 7f. Visitors will understand the need for and benefit of conservation, preservation and scientific monitoring at the landscape level, across and in partnership with other jurisdictions, and private and not-for-profit owned and managed lands.

GOAL 8: Increase compliance with regulations, enhancing visitors’ sense of stewardship.

Desired Outcome 8a. The amount of litter will steadily decrease. Desired Outcome 8b. The number of cited violations will decrease.

GOAL 9: Promote the professional standing and development of staff and volunteers involved with interpretation and environmental education.

Desired Outcome 9a. All interpretive, educational and outreach programs will be consistent with MPRPD’s mission, vision and supporting documents, as well as professional standards/best management practices as set forth by professional organizations. Desired Outcome 9b. Interpretive training and certification for MPRPD staff and volunteers will be encouraged and supported as the budget allows. Desired Outcome 9c. A dedicated interpretive staff explores partnerships of mutual benefit and guides the development of innovative interpretive programs and services.

1. f) Geographic location of your project and characteristics of that location (rural, coastal, wetland, urban, specific areas within a city or county, etc.) MPRPD serves the greater Monterey Peninsula, including the incorporated and unincorporated communities of Marina, Seaside, Sand City, Carmel, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Carmel Valley and the Big Sur Coast. MPRPD currently protects over 12,000 acres, represented in 11 parks, open space areas and conservation lands, and has helped to protect:

• Pristine beaches and coastal lands; • Open space and trails; • Remaining redwood and Monterey Pine forests in our area; • Creeks and streams; • Marine, coastal and upland bird and animal habitat; and • Prehistoric and historic cultural sites.


8

As a backdrop for both the rural and urban centers of the Monterey Peninsula, these areas of open space connect with other tracts of undeveloped land owned and managed by other jurisdictions, private parties and not-for profit organizations to provide wildlife habitat and migration corridors, native seed banks, magnificent views, headwater watersheds, and myriad low-impact recreation opportunities for visitors from the Monterey Bay area. 1. g) Important demographic characteristics of your project area that will benefit or be impacted with creation and/or addition of recreational opportunities. The Bureau of the Census 2010 Decennial Census database revealed that the population within the district boundaries was 128,199. The demographic breakdown for the District by race is comprised of: White (59.5%); Hispanic or Latino (21.8%), African American (6.7%); Pacific Islander (.9%); Native American (.7%); two or more (5.2%); and other (8.7%). The Park District’s legal obligation for voting requires that each of its five electoral wards be essentially equal in population. Lower income and minority populations are concentrated in Wards 1, 2 and 3. Table 1: Population by Race/Ethnicity and MPRPD Ward by percentage.

(Bureau of the Census 2010)Ward White Hispanic

Latino African

American Native

American Asian Pacific

Islander Other Two or

More 1 40.0 25.9 7.1 .4 17.1 2.2 .2 6.8 2 29.5 45.1 8.9 .3 9.4 1.7 .1 .5 3 65.3 19.5 2.4 .3 8.3 .5 .2 3.5 4 78.1 10.0 1.7 .3 5.9 .2 .2 3.5 5 86.1 7.1 .5 .2 3.7 .1 .3 2.0

Ward 1 includes the City of Marina and some unincorporated voting wards south of the City within areas of the former Fort Ord that are within the City's sphere of influence and may be annexed by the City; and portions within the northern border of the City of Seaside. Ward 2 includes the City of Seaside, excepting the northern portion in Ward 1, and the northern half of Sand City with unincorporated areas of the former Fort Ord encompassing the Bureau of Land Management reserve lands and the Laguna Seca area. Ward 3 includes the cities of Del Rey Oaks and Monterey, excluding the Presidio and the area known as “New Monterey.” Ward 4 includes the City of Pacific Grove, the Presidio, the area known as “New Monterey” and the northern half of Pebble Beach. Ward 5 includes the City of Carmel, the southern portion of Pebble Beach, and the unincorporated areas of Carmel Valley, Carmel Highlands, Big Sur and Cachagua.


9

Every ten years the District, like many other governing bodies, is required to redraw its ward boundaries to reflect population changes, as needed. The boundaries were last redrawn in 2011 as a result of the 2010 census. Applicant and Partner Roles:

2. a. Describe your role and the level of commitment/services your organization can provide to the project.

b. List the key partners involved with the project. Briefly summarize the existing or anticipated role and contribution of each partner.

c. Please include commitment letters from each partner listed in the application. Commitment letters should note the partner’s support, list their anticipated project role, expected contribution(s), and responsibilities in the project.

2. a) Describe your role and the level of commitment/services your organization can provide to

the project. The Environmental Education and Community Outreach (EECO) Division is

responsible for environmental education, park interpretation, volunteer services, community events and community outreach. The Environmental Education Supervisor exercises supervisory responsibilities and provides direction and overall management of MPRPD’s EECO Division including interpretive, educational and recreational programs, interpretive facilities, outreach, special events and volunteer services.

As the Environmental Education Supervisor, I have committed a minimum of 25%

of my time during the Fiscal Year: July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016 towards the completion of this project. The remaining EECO staff has committed a minimum of 10% of their time to the completion of the IMPG during the Fiscal Year 2015-2016. MPRPD as an agency has committed staff time in support of the research, planning, development including workshop(s) attendance to the IMPG.

2. b) List the key partners involved with the project. Briefly summarize the existing or anticipated

role and contribution of each partner. Mr. Jim Covel, Director of Guest Experience Training & Interpretation Monterey Bay Aquarium Mr. Covel is an experienced interpreter and held the President position for the

National Association for Interpretation (NAI) from 2008 to 2010. He teaches interpretive training programs for NAI and has taught interpretive methods and planning courses for University of California-Davis and California State University-Sacramento. He has worked on interpretive planning with East Bay Regional Park District, California State Parks, and Southgate Recreation and Park District.

Mr. Covel is committed to providing interpretive and interpretive planning

expertise, participation at workshop(s) and peer review the IMPG document.


10

Ms. Patricia Clark-Gray, Monterey District Interpretive Specialist California State Parks

Ms. Clark-Gray has expertise in preparing Master Plans for the California State Parks. She is currently in the process of developing an Interpretive Master Plan for the Carmel area.

Ms. Clark-Gray is committed to providing interpretive and interpretive planning expertise, area resource materials, participation at workshop(s) and peer review of the IMPG document.

Ms. Dawn Hayes, Deputy Superintendent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) Ms. Hayes developed MBNMS’ Site Management Plan and is responsible for the

operations planning, budgeting and administering of it. She brings over 20 years of professional experience in program development and interpretation to the project. As the Deputy Superintendent (and former Education & Outreach Coordinator) Ms. Hayes has expertise in preparing interpretive plans, including participation in an extensive interpretive planning process for a regional scenic trail ringing Monterey Bay; and facilitation of a regional, multi-state long-range interpretive planning process for national marine sanctuaries on the west coast. Ms. Hayes is committed to providing expertise in interpretation and interpretive planning, participation at workshop(s), review of the document and overall guidance and mentorship to the project.

Dr. Annie Holdren, PhD, Exhibits Curator Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Dr. Holdren has prepared an Interpretive Plan for the museum and its native plant

gardens. She wrote science and social studies units for California's Education and the Environment Initiative (EEI), for grade levels ranging from 3rd to 11th. Before that (2000-2006) she developed and wrote inquiry-based science curriculum for Science Companion (a product of the Chicago Science Group), for grades 1-5. She also helped to develop and write one (2nd grade) unit for an "Everyday Science" workbook published by Evan-Moore.

Dr. Holdren is committed to providing her expertise in interpretive planning,

accessing resource materials, participation in workshop(s) and peer review of the IMPG document.


11

Ms. Rachel Saunders, Director of Conservation Big Sur Land Trust Ms. Saunders has more than 25 years of experience promoting conservation of

coastal and marine environments through science, policy, planning and community outreach. Prior to joining The Big Sur Land Trust in 2007, Ms. Saunders served as Community and Public Relations Coordinator for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, as Planning Director for Camp Sea Lab (a children’s ocean science education camp), and as Field Office Director for the Ocean Conservancy, a national ocean conservation organization. She has an M.S. in Natural Resources Policy and Management and a B.A. in Environmental Science.

Ms. Saunders is committed to sharing resources materials, participation in

workshop(s) and peer review of the IMPG document. Ms. Ann Wasser, Education Manager Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History Ms. Wasser has a Master of Education in Science Education from the University

of Washington and has been instrumental in management of community programs for the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History. She has developed successful education programs that promote environmental stewardship including citizen science activities and California Naturalists.

Ms. Wasser is committed to accessing resource materials, participation in

workshop(s) and peer review of the IMPG document. Dr. Suzanne Worcester, Professor Division of Science and Environmental Policy California State University, Monterey Bay Dr. Worcester teaches courses in interpretation, field ecology, marine biology,

wetlands biology, and similar subjects at California State University, Monterey Bay. She has been on the faculty at CSUMB since 1996, and holds a Ph.D. in Integrative Biology from the University of California at Berkeley. Her research focuses on the biology of vernal pools and restoration ecology, including studies on MPRPD lands. In addition to her academic work, Professor Worcester has a long interest in and involvement in local land use issues and joined Land Watch Board in April 2003.

Dr. Worcester is committed to providing interpretive and interpretive planning

expertise, area resource materials, participation at workshop(s) and peer review of the IMPG document.


12

Public Support:

3. a) Describe the level of public support to date, and any plans for future public outreach, participation, and community inclusion.

MPRPD volunteers have been involved in the preliminary planning process of the IMPG and will continue to provide input throughout the development of the document. There are opportunities to reach the broader constituency base through public workshops and through a public hearing during an MPRPD board meeting. Staff has developed a list of stakeholders, partners and residents to include in Interpretive Planning workshops. Board meetings are announced on the MPRPD website and in print media. 3. b) Provide letters of support from three stakeholders.

Big Sur Land Trust – Rachel Saunders California State Parks – Pat Clark-Gray California State University, Monterey Bay – Suzanne Worcester Monterey Bay Aquarium – Julie Packard National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary – Dawn Hayes Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History – Annie Holdren and Ann Wasser

National Park Service Assistance: 4. a. What are the major challenges and overall needs of the project?

b. What type of assistance are you seeking from National Park Service staff? Please include a short description of the specific project need(s) for each of the boxes checked. Prioritize the project’s top needs in the description.

Defining project vision and goals Identifying and analyzing issues and opportunities Assessing and engaging partners and stakeholders Inventory and mapping of community resources Priority setting and consensus building Identifying funding sources Organizational development Designing community outreach and participation strategies Planning (trail, park, open space, greenway, etc.) Other

4. a) What are the major challenges and overall needs of the project A comprehensive look at the MPRPD’s interpretive program has never been conducted to date. MPRPD realizes a comprehensive assessment and strategy is needed in order to effectively plan for the future.


13

The vision of the first MPRPD IMPG includes incorporating interpretation and environmental education practices that establish broad goals and objectives for interpretation, reaches the target audience, and identifies relevant themes and sub-themes with universal messages of both interpretation and environmental education. Incorporating these two disciplines into one document is one of the major challenges in the development of the IMPG. An interpretive planning process provides a filter for agencies and organizations to evaluate the effectiveness of and to make decisions about the use of interpretation. Use of the plan, intended as an assessment tool, will aid staff and managers in moving toward the goals stated in the document. MPRPD needs support and expertise in the planning process. Narrowing the focus of the development process of the IMPG and getting input from stakeholders and the public to formulate the most effective means of reaching our target audiences with the most important messages are two major challenges. 4. b) What type of assistance are you seeking from National Park Service staff? Please include

a short description of the specific project need(s) for each of the boxes checked. Prioritize the project’s top needs in the description.

X Defining project vision and goals A top priority of this project is defining the project’s vision and goals. Because MPRPD has never formulated an interpretive plan before, we have gleaned information from successful interpretive plans to attempt to come up with a relevant project vision and goals, and from this information, we have made a start at defining that vision. As stated in the answer to question 4(a) above, MPRPD’s desire is to formulate a vision that incorporates the practices of environmental education and interpretation. This vision should also include the target audiences for the IMPG as well as an overarching theme for interpretive messages. Ultimately, this vision must be concise, easy to understand, and achievable. X Identifying and analyzing issues and opportunities Narrowing the focus of the development process is also a top priority of this project. MPRPD’s internal charter for this process was described in the answer to question 1.a): “The goals presented in the guide will describe the WHY the MPRPD conducts education and interpretation; the desired outcomes demonstrate HOW those goals are achieved.” Assistance in identifying the issues facing MPRPD in this process (the WHY) and in formulating opportunities to address those issues (the HOW) will be vital to reaching our destination. X Assessing and engaging partners and stakeholders Another top priority is assessing and engaging partners and stakeholders in the development of the IMPG. Potential partners may include like-minded governmental


14

agencies and non-profit groups, local businesses and media organization. Stakeholders may include MPRPD staff and volunteers and visitors to MPRPD parks and open space. A key stakeholder is MPRPD Board of Directors; enhancing their understanding of the importance of interpretation as it relates to parks is vital to Board approval of the final IMPG. As a result of this assessment and engagement process, MPRPD will be in a better position to craft the best interpretive messages to meet the audience needs. X Inventory and mapping of community resources Staff and partners are committed to researching and documenting natural, cultural and historical information. Assistance at workshops and stakeholder meetings to analyze the information and develop statements of significance is needed. X Priority setting and consensus building The MPRPD Board of Directors and staff began a District-wide, 5-year Strategic Master Planning process. Aligning with the MPRPD Strategic Master Plan, the IMPG will identify the significant resources for every MPRPD park, open space and conservation land and will provide direction in formulating future, site-specific interpretive master plans. Support is needed providing an introductory overview of interpretation to the MPRPD Board of Directors at a board meeting or workshop. This will allow for Board input regarding the setting of priorities for the IMPG and will also provide a foundation for Board members to begin building a consensus for the project among their constituencies. X Identifying funding sources MPRPD receives funding from a number of different sources, including property tax, assessments fees, grants and rental income. While MPRPD’s financials are meeting current needs, MPRPD face funding challenges in the future. By making all environmental education activities and classes free of charge to the public, MPRPD has effectively ended one potential revenue stream. In addition, the property tax assessment agreed to by the voters of the Monterey Peninsula is due to expire soon and MPRPD is exploring a potential ballot measure to renew these funds to protect and enhance local parks and open space. For these reasons, MPRPD is requesting assistance in identifying funding sources for future interpretive activities. X Designing community outreach and participation strategies The design of community outreach and participation strategies is an assessment tool that provides MPRPD the opportunity to have an understanding of the community’s needs and interests about the many diverse natural and cultural assets of the area. Public participation at workshops, or other venues, will help to determine which stories to tell, where and how to best tell them, and when.


15

5. Describe how your project advances one or more key National Park Service strategic initiatives. Projects that contribute to one or more of these strategic initiatives are given emphasis in the project selection process.

a. Builds partnerships with health and wellness organizations to promote healthy

parks and healthy people; b. Engages youth or youth organizations to promote close-to-home resource

conservation, stewardship, and outdoor recreation opportunities; c. Develops and/or improves local connections to parks, rivers, trails,

and greenways within urban areas; d. Improves public access to National Park Service sites by enhancing connections

to local communities; e. Advances the conservation and stewardship of natural landscapes; f. Expands public access to water resources, such as water trails, portages, and

adjacent recreational opportunities. The mission of the MPRPD--“to acquire and maintain open space in the District for preservation and use, working with partners and the community, for public benefit, enjoyment and environmental protection”--aligns with many of the National Park Service strategic initiatives. The MPRPD Board-adopted Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 budget document identifies MPRPD’s commitment to the following “Goals for Environmental Preservation.”

Acquire/complete and maintain open space interconnectedness and recreational/urban parks

Provide/maintain recreational opportunities/programs Maintain and promote effective communication that reaches diverse audiences Connect the public, local and tourists, with parks and open space Preserve biodiversity Establish/strengthen relationships with current partners and explore new

partnerships The Environmental Education and Community Outreach Division, in the same Board approved document, identified the following Division goals:

Develop “Connecting Students to Their Local Watershed,” a watershed education program for students grades K-8, and professional development opportunities for teachers, in partnership with the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History; funded by NOAA Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Grant for 2015-2016.

Explore and develop a Healthy Lifestyle-Hike Your Parks campaign in partnership with Community Hospital of the Monterey Peninsula

Expand educational opportunities at MPRPD parklands with a minimum of ten (10) total organized Let’s Go Outdoors programs, school group field trips, outreach events and public planting days

Develop and distribute a District-wide Long Range Interpretive Master Plan Develop a minimum of two (2) new partnerships that facilitate access to MPRPD

lands and that increases utilization of MPRPD parklands as a local resource and


16

prime location for engaging local students (especially under-served and/or non-English speaking populations) to learn about their local watershed environments

Explore fundraising opportunities through grants, partnerships and advertisements.

Specifically, MPRPD is dedicated to the following National Park Service strategic initiatives in the following ways: 5. a) Builds partnerships with health and wellness organizations to promote healthy parks and

healthy people; Discussions have begun between MPRPD and Community Health of the Monterey Peninsula to establish a partnership that promotes wellness through outdoor activities in parks and open spaces. 5. b) Engages youth or youth organizations to promote close-to-home resource conservation,

stewardship, and outdoor recreation opportunities; MPRPD, in partnership with the Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History (PGMNH), was awarded funding support from the federal Department of Commerce’s National Ocean Service (NOS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) - 2015 California Bay Watershed Education and Training (B-WET) Program grant to develop and pilot a “Connecting Students to Their Local Watershed” education program for students grades K-8, as well as professional development opportunities for teachers. These programs are to be delivered on MPRPD properties. Included will be PGMNH extant lessons paired with best practices in watershed education and student-based citizen science programs. MPRPD also sponsors youth-oriented activities through our “Let’s Go Outdoors!” Adventure Activities Guide, a “recreational catalogue” designed to encourage residents and visitors to go outdoors at our parks, open spaces and conservation lands. In addition to activities in the catalogue designed primarily for youth, MPRPD sponsors a program called “Create-a-Class”, a customizable outdoor adventure. MPRPD is also in the process of developing interpretive signage to support its Garland Ranch Regional Park Arboretum and Natural Plan Garden. Great care is being taken to craft understandable messages which may inspire young people to plant their own gardens and to conserve current resources. 5. c) Develops and/or improves local connections to parks, rivers, trails, and greenways

within urban areas; In April, 2014 MPRPD, California State Parks, Big Sur Land Trust and Point Lobos Foundation signed a multi-agency agreement for the benefit of the public and the preservation of parklands and open space in the region between Carmel and Garrapata State Park, known as the Lobos-Corona Parklands Project. The project seeks to significantly enhance public recreation, outdoor education, stewardship opportunities, and people’s connection to the land.


17

MPRPD has established a Parks, Open Space and Coastal Preservation Grant program to assist public agencies, community groups, supporting organizations, and nonprofit organizations within the District by providing funding for capital improvements, coastal preservation, environmental education programs, and increased access to open space. The primary objective of the grant program is to provide funding for improvements or significant repairs/replacements at neighborhood community park facilities and open space areas within the District boundaries, and to encourage youth to utilize parks in a positive and meaningful way. The District recognizes the funding challenges facing local communities, particularly in the areas of parks and recreation. The aim of the District is to promote park and open space projects, and to provide funding assistance to local agencies and community groups for the improvement or development of park and recreation facilities, environmental education programming, and increased access to and use of open space areas. To date nearly $800,000 in grant money has been award to the local community including parks in Seaside (Laguna Grande) and Marina (Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park). 5. e) Advances the conservation and stewardship of natural landscapes; MPRPD currently partners with the California State University, Monterey Bay Watershed Institute and Return of the Natives to provide habitat restoration activities from plantings, weed eradication and seed collection on several MPRPD properties including Locke-Paddon Wetland Community Park and Marina Dunes Preserve. MPRPD volunteers, staff and partnering agencies offer stewardship activities throughout the year including trail clean-up and access projects; restoration and plantings, establishment and maintenance of a native plant garden and arboretum at Garland Ranch Regional Park; and Watershed Awareness and Earth Day activities. 5. f) Expands public access to water resources, such as water trails, portages, and adjacent

recreational opportunities. The Carmel River travels through three MPRPD parks, from its head waters at the Cachagua Community Park through Garland Ranch Regional Park (GRRP), and lastly flowing adjacent to Palo Corona Regional Park on its way to the Pacific Ocean. GRRP is the central point for the river’s journey and serves as the visitor destination place for hiking, equestrian and school programs. As a gathering place for recreation activities the newly remodeled visitor center at GRRP offers interpretive information and environmental education programming. The properties along the Carmel River also provide a venue for stewardship activities, restoration projects, and self-guided and naturalist-led wildlife watching opportunities.


DATE: November 2, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Tim Jensen, Planning and Conservation Manager REVIEWED BY: Rafael Payan, General Manager SUBJECT: Approval of Whitson Engineers Contract Amendment for Palo

Corona Regional Park Parking Project Construction Management Services

RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends the board move to approve the contract amendment with Whitson Engineers in substantially the form and content submitted and authorize staff to execute. FISCAL IMPACT $17,100.00 DISCUSSION Whitson Engineers (“Whitson”) is the engineering and design firm of record for the Palo Corona Regional Park Parking Facility project (“Project”). Whitson was initially hired in August 2012 with a payment sum of $18,320 to design the Project. After the initial and amended designs for Big Sur Land Trust property were deemed infeasible, the Board approved a payment amendment of an additional $100,000 in February 2013 to re-design the parking project in the park and also design the State Route 1 left-turn lane project. This work has been completed and the District holds a Coastal Development and Construction Permit to complete the Project. The Board approved a draft contract with Anderson Pacific Construction, which is pending full execution. The District’s current contract with Whitson did not anticipate Construction Management Services. These services were contemplated as being administered in-house. However, short-staffing and El Nino preparation have rendered discretionary staff availability untenable. To move this project along in a timely manner staff has drafted an amendment for these essential construction management services (Attachment 1). The current Parks, Open Space, and Coastal Preservation Assessment District Budget has $585,000 set aside for this project. The approved bid is approximately $300,000 and the grant is approximately $260,000. The net cost to the District will be about $40,000 of the $585,000. The additional $17,000 for construction management services is a de-minmus impact on these budgeted funds. ATTACHMENT

1. Amendment

AGENDA ITEM NO. 11-F

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District60 Garden Court, Suite 325

Monterey, CA 93940-5341

Contract for Services – Amendment 6

The Agreement originally made and effective as of August 10, 2012 between theMonterey Peninsula Regional Park DISTRICT, a special DISTRICT sub-division of theState of California, herein referred to as “DISTRICT”, and Whitson Engineers,herein referred to as “CONSULTANT”, is hereby amended and agreed to by bothCONSULTANT and DISTRICT as follows:

5. PAYMENT

(a) The DISTRICT agrees to pay CONSULTANT monthly, in accordance with thepayment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B,attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth infull, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.

This amount shall not exceed One Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Four Hundredand Twenty dollars ($135,420.00) for the total term of the AGREEMENT unlessadditional payment is approved as provided in this AGREEMENT.

The Scope of Services shall also be amended to include Exhibit 1.

IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to beexecuted the day and year last written below.

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL CONSULTANTPARK DISTRICT

By: ________________________ By: ________________________Kelly Sorenson Date Rich Weber, PE, LS, QSD DatePresident Principal

shuran

Attachment 1

9699 Blue Larkspur Lane ▪ Suite 105 ▪ Monterey, CA 93940

831 649-5225 ▪ Fax 831 373-5065

CIVIL ENGINEERING ▪ LAND SURVEYING ▪ PROJECT MANAGEMENT

October 13, 2015 Project No.: 2835.04 Mr. Timothy Jensen Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District 60 Garden Court, Suite 325 Monterey, CA 93940-5341 Via email: [email protected] Re: Proposal for Construction Management and Post Design Services

Palo Corona Ranch – Access & Parking Lot Improvements Monterey County, CA

Dear Mr. Jensen, Whitson Engineers is pleased to submit this proposal for additional services to provide Construction Management and Post Design Services for the new parking lot and access road improvements at Palo Corona Regional Park. If approved, the proposed additional services will be performed as an amendment to our contract dated July 2, 2012. Based on our conversations with you and our knowledge of the project we propose the following scope of work: SCOPE OF SERVICES: Task 1 – Construction Management Provide Construction Administration limited to the access road, parking lot and dry utility plans unless otherwise noted below.

1. Review Contractor submittals and shop drawing. 2. Conduct site visits for construction work during the course of construction at request

of Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District. Site visits are anticipated to be a pre-construction meeting and at the subgrade, base, and form checking construction phases. (10 hours budgeted)

3. Review and provide responses to Client for Requests for Information (RFI) and Contract Change Orders (CCO).

4. Participate in the Final Completion Inspection and provide a “Punch-List” to Client. 5. Prepare Record Drawings for Monterey County based on mark-ups provided by the

project superintendent and Monterey County Inspectors.

Amendment 6, Exhibit 1

Palo Corona Ranch –Access & Parking Lot Project No. 2235.04 Proposal for Construction Management & Post Design Services October 14, 2015

2835.04-Pro_CM.doc Page 2

Task 2 – Construction Staking Provide Construction Staking limited to the phase 1 of the improvement plans unless otherwise noted below.

1. Calculate staking points based on approved Plans, and coordinate with Construction Contractor. Prepare staking cut sheets and plots for Contractor’s use.

2. Clearing Stakes: Provide 1 set of clearing stakes at the perimeter of the proposed grading limits.

3. Access Road Rough Grade Staking: Provide stakes at each turn out and every 50 feet, at points of horizontal and vertical curvature and at angle points (offset to be determined by contractor).

4. Parking Lot Rough Grade Staking: Provide offset stakes at each corner of the parking area, and one at each grade break.

5. Provide one set of 2 stakes for approximately 4 storm drain structures. 6. Finish Grade Staking – Provide finish grade stakes for accessible parking area and

the accessible pathway. Task 3 – Testing and Observation Services (Grice Engineering) Through our sub consultant, Grice Engineering, provide the following geotechnical testing and observation services:

1. Field Compaction Testing: provide observation services and field compaction testing of the fill placement, finish subgrade and aggregate base.

2. Documentation and Engineering Review: Provide field and formal documentation of site observations and compaction test data and prepare a final grading report.

Assumptions:

1. All our work products will be provided in PDF format. 2. Reproduction will be provided by others, or will be reimbursed separately.

Exclusions: The following work is specifically excluded from the Engineer’s Scope of Services:

1. Changes in scope of the Engineer’s work 2. Submittal review for items outside the civil engineer’s scope of work. 3. Daily construction monitoring and reports. 4. Construction monitoring of PG&E’s scope of work 5. Geotechnical testing and observations. 6. Documentation and filing of prevailing wage or certified payroll. 7. Obtaining permits, permit condition compliance 8. Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) services, which includes SWPPP preparation 9. Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) work, which includes stormwater monitoring,

sampling, analysis, and reporting 10. Construction inspections 11. Preparation of on-site as-builts and “Punch-List”.

Please note that upon your request we could provide the above services at additional cost.

Palo Corona Ranch –Access & Parking Lot Project No. 2235.04 Proposal for Construction Management & Post Design Services October 14, 2015

2835.04-Pro_CM.doc Page 3

PAYMENT AND PROVISIONS: Progress Billings and Authorized Additional Services will be on a Time and Materials basis in accordance with the rates shown on the Fee Schedule (T35) included as part of the original contract dated January 3, 2014. We estimate that the cost for the services described in the above Scope of Services will be as follows: Description of Work Estimated Fee

1. Construction Management 1.1 Review Submittals and Shop Drawings $900 1.2 Conduct Site Visits $1,550 1.3 Respond to Requests for information $1,450 1.4 Final Completion Inspection $850 1.5 Record Drawings $850

2. Construction Staking $7,400 3. Testing and Inspections Services $4,100

Total $17,100 This amount will not be exceeded without first notifying the Client. We will begin work immediately following the receipt of a signed agreement. If you have any questions or need more information, please contact me at (831) 649-5225. Sincerely, WHITSON ENGINEERS Sincerely,

Richard Weber PE, LS RCE 55219 Authorization for Civil Engineering and Land Surveying Services: By: Date: Print Name: Title: RPW/dr T35 Cc:


DATE: November 2, 2015 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Shuran Parker, Administrative Services Manager REVIEWED BY: Rafael Payan, General Manager SUBJECT: 2016 Board Meeting Schedule, Board Appointments and Election

of Officers RECOMMENDED ACTION It is recommended that the Board approve the 2016 Board meeting schedule as presented, consider its standing and miscellaneous Board committee assignments and appointments, and elect its officers for 2016. FISCAL IMPACT None DISCUSSION Attached (ATTACHMENT 1) is the proposed 2016 Board of Directors meeting schedule. For your information, 2015 Board standing committees and assignments were:

Finance – Kathleen Lee and Kelly Sorenson Personnel – Kathleen Lee and Kelly Sorenson Community Outreach – John Dalessio Real Property/Land Use Management – John Dalessio and Kelly Sorenson

2015 Board Officers assignments:

President – Kelly Sorenson Vice-President – vacant (formerly held by Christine Dresslar Moss) Secretary/Treasurer – Katie Pofahl

Other current Board member committee/liaison assignments include:

Oversight Board to the Successor Agency for City of Marina – Kathleen Lee Oversight Board to the Successor Agency for the City of Monterey – Katie

Pofahl Special Districts Association of Monterey County – John Dalessio

Finally, The Board President and Vice President also serve, as needed, as the Nominating Committee for Assessment District Citizens Oversight Committee (ADCOC). Current members and their status include:

Mary Dainton – Term 1: 1/2014-12/2015 Steve Dennis – Term 1: 1/2015-12/2016

AGENDA ITEM NO. 12

Gaely Jablonski – Term 1: 1/2011-12/2012; Term 2: 1/2013-12/2014; Term 3: 1/2015-12/2016

Ron Pasquinelli – Term 1: 1/2011-12/2012; Term 2: 1/2013-12/2014; Term 3: 1/2015-12/2016

Bill Wojtkowski – Term 1: 1/2011-12/2012; Term 2: 1/2013-12/2014; Term 3: 1/2015-12/2016

Committee Members Jablonski; Pasquinelli and Wojtkowski will complete their third and final terms in 2016 and Steve Dennis will complete his first term in 2016. Mary Dainton was unavailable before this meeting but staff believes that she may be amenable to serving another term and so recommend that she be reappointed for a new two-year term commencing January, 2016. In the event that Ms. Dainton in not willing to serve, the Nominating Committee will be so advised and charged with recommending a replacement for the December Board meeting. At this time, staff is recommending that the Board approve the 2016 meeting schedule as presented or amended, consider its standing and other miscellaneous Board committee assignments, elect its officers for the upcoming year and make the necessary re-appointment of Mary Dainton to the ADCOC. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed 2016 Board Meeting Schedule

Regional Park District Calendar Year 2016 Board Meeting Dates

MONDAY

January – No Meeting due to proximity to New Year’s Holiday

February 1st March 7th April 4th May 2nd June 6th July 11th August 1st

August 29th October 3rd November 7th December 5th

Proposed

shuran

Attachment 1

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

BOARD MEETING: November 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Monthly Financial Report PRESENTER: Kelly McCullough, Finance Manager REPORT: Attached for review are three reports: the Balance Sheet

Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 1), Budget vs. Actual (ATTACHMENT 2) and Budget vs. Actual Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 3). Balance Sheet Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 1): The Balance Sheet report summarizes the District’s financial position at a given point in time, calculating how much the District is worth by subtracting all the money the District owes (liabilities) from everything it owns (assets). The result is what the District is worth. The District operates on a July 1 – June 30 fiscal year.

Assets include items of value that the District owns, such as land, buildings, equipment, accounts receivable, grants receivable, cash and investments.

The reader of this report should note that of the $10,694,783 reflected in the total for Checking/Savings only $8,364,682 can currently be used for the District’s operating costs. The CalTrust Seawall Mitigation account in the amount of $2,316,036 is restricted for use in acquiring beachfront/dune property for recreational use in the southern Monterey Bay area. The MPRPD-Benefit account consists of $14,065 of employee funds withheld from employee salaries for supplemental insurance premiums paid for entirely by employees.

At the March 10, 2014 monthly Board meeting, the District established a General Fund (Unassigned) Reserve Policy for these funds to ensure that the District has adequate funds available to cover operating costs for a 6-month period, payment for pending land acquisitions and a contingency for emergencies and replacement needs.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13–A1

Liabilities include accounts payable (bills we haven’t yet paid including Cal Card expenses), unpaid expenses that we owe, loans (notes payable), and future expenses.

The attached balance sheet compares the District’s financial position as of September 30, 2015, this fiscal year, to September 30 of last fiscal year. The column labeled “Sep 30,15” lists this fiscal year’s assets and liabilities. The column labeled “Sep 30, 14” lists last fiscal year’s assets and liabilities.

The “$ Change” column shows the difference in dollars between the two fiscal years as of September 30, 2015.

The “% Change” column shows the amount as a percentage of change over the prior year. Any variance from last fiscal year to this fiscal year greater than 10% is footnoted with a corresponding explanation on the final page of the Balance Sheet.

Budget vs. Actual (ATTACHMENT 2): This report shows how well the District is meeting its budget for income and expenses in the current fiscal year. It is often referred to as a Profit & Loss report in the not-for-profit and for-profit business world. For each type of income or expense, the report compares the budgeted amounts to the actual income and expenses. The “Actual Revenue & Expenditures” column reports the amount of revenue received or the expenditures made as of the date in the column. The attached report was prepared to compare three months of fiscal year activity (July through September 2015) against the annual budget. The “Adopted Budget” column reflects the Board approved budget for the fiscal year which runs from July 1 to June 30 each year. There may be amendments to the budget throughout the year. These upward or downward budget adjustments are reflected in the total of this column. The “$ Over/Under Budget” column shows the difference in dollars between the budgeted amount and the actual amount. A negative amount means that the District is under budget for the year; a positive amount means that it is over budget.

The “% of Budget” column shows the actual amount as a percentage of the budgeted amount. Less than 100% means that the District is under budget for the year; more than 100% means that it is over budget. Government agencies use a double entry accounting method. The Other Income/Expense Contra Accounts section at the bottom of the report reflects an auditor request that we use contra accounts for our journal entry adjustments to assist the auditors in their review and examination of the financial statements. Budget vs. Actual Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 3): This report compares the District’s actual revenue and expenditures for a particular time period (July through September) of the current fiscal year with that of the same time period (July through September) last fiscal year. The “Jul - Sep 15 “ column reflects the current fiscal year revenue and expenditures for the months of July through September. The “Jul - Sep 14” column shows revenue and expenditures last fiscal year for the months of July through September. The “$ Change” shows the difference between the two fiscal years as of September 30. The “% Change” column shows the difference between the two fiscal years as a percentage. Any percentage of change greater than 100% is footnoted on the last page of the report. The large variances between the two years can be the result of new projects, new and unexpected events, or seasonal timing of work. Government agencies use a double entry accounting method. The Other Income/Expense Contra Accounts section at the bottom of the report reflects an auditor request that we use contra accounts for our journal entry adjustments to assist the auditors in their review and examination of the financial statements.

The District also prepares a quarterly investment report as required by Policy for the Boards review in November, February, May and August. It is important to note that these reports are unaudited and the numbers are subject to and do change as the District closes its books June 30 each fiscal year end and not on a monthly basis. In addition, these reports are due and prepared for inclusion in the Board packet prior to all activity for the month being received and recorded. Final adjusting accounting entries are made at the close of the annual audit which generally occurs in December.

FISCAL IMPACT: Not Applicable – Informational Only FUNDING BALANCE: Not Applicable – Informational Only RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board receive, review and file the

attached financial transaction reports: Balance Sheet Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 1), Budget vs. Actual (ATTACHMENT 2), and Budget vs. Actual Previous Year Comparison (ATTACHMENT 3) as presented.

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT STAFF REPORT

BOARD MEETING: November 2, 2015 SUBJECT: Operations and Maintenance Division Update PRESENTER: Caine Camarillo, Supervising Ranger REPORT: Fallen trees throughout District Parks and Preserves

continue to be of major concern to Operations and Maintenance Staff. Trees that succumb to the stresses of drought conditions can in cases topple. Oak trees have been particularly affected by these conditions, but no specie is immune. Within the last month, several more large trees have fallen including Cypress and Eucalyptus. Until current conditions change, this unfortunate trend is likely to continue.

Staff continues to make preparations in anticipation of an

active El Nino year. This includes clearing drain dips and culverts, removing debris from gutters and downspouts, and filling sandbags to be stockpiled at structures in low-lying areas (including the Visitor Center). Staff has also attended several disaster preparation meetings to determine how best to prepare for flood conditions and what emergency resources are available.

Installation of the vegetative screen required as part of the

tolling agreement with Ms. Diana Fish continues. Staff has completed stabilization of the planting site, and will complete the initial planting during the month of October. Staff will continue to monitor the site throughout the winter to ensure its success. A subsequent planting will take place after winter, following the propagation of seeds collected from on-site species. Staff will report project costs when completed.

FISCAL IMPACT: N/A FUNDING SOURCE: N/A FUNDING BALANCE: N/A RECOMMENDATION: For Information Only

AGENDA ITEM NO. 13-C1

Documents

MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 60 …1. MONTEREY PENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . 60 Garden Court, Suite 325 Monterey, California 93940-5341 Del Rey Oaks Council Chambers